WILLIAMSON CO.—A happenstance overhear of an apparently unscheduled and therefore, un-agenda’d, meeting of Williamson County board members has raised questions over how many full board meetings are held without the public being advised of them.
Disclosure staffers were at the county’s administrative building in Marion on Thursday, November 14, 2013, following up on a tragic accident that took the life of a Harrisburg woman the day before (see website for details) as well as delivering Freedom of Information Act requests when staff overheard loud voices coming from what was marked as a “storage room” off to the side of the county board meeting room on the second floor of the building.
Room 226, clearly marked “Storage Room,” seemed an odd place for what seemed to be a serious meeting of what sounded, judging by the conversation, like public officials.
As Disclosure staff listened, a gruff voice opined about letting something “wait til December 31st,” and how that, in his vulgarity-filled opinion, was a bad idea.
The man, whose voice was deep and booming, analogized letting the matter (whatever it was) sit until that time to a “festering sore on your leg, and you’re gonna let it sit until December 31st? F^*k no; you’re gonna take care of it right now!”
Other voices joined in on the opining, but were not so booming and thus weren’t easy to understand through the closed double doors of the “storage closet.”
However, the first voice came back, telling the others “It’s time to rock n roll!” and that they had to “get on this.
“They’re gonna do what they’re told,” the man said, “or we’re gonna take em in front of the group!”
Scrambling
Less than a week later, Disclosure was able to obtain access to the scheduling book for the county board, as well as for the board room.
On that date in question (Nov. 14), there were no meetings scheduled. However, Disclosure confirmed that the county commissioners had been using the room at that time.
The room, it was explained, was actually a “lunch room” and was “mismarked,” by the contractor who put up the building, as a “storage room.”
On the day this discovery was being made (Thursday, Nov. 21), the plaque noting that Room 226 was a “storage room” was conspicuously absent, having been removed since Disclosure first brought the situation to the public’s attention a week prior (see photo).
Disclosure sources inquired of the situation of the county board’s receptionist, asking for the agenda for that particular meeting being held during the 3 p.m. hour on Thursday, Nov. 14, as well as for the minutes of the meeting (which public bodies are required by state law to keep).
The receptionist advised that the meeting in question “wasn’t an open meeting, therefore, there was no agenda and no minutes kept.”
This, according to the schedule book, was reflected accordingly: the only thing on the receptionist’s book for that date was “tax sale.”
And this poses a serious problem for the Williamson County board.
5 ILCS 120
According to Illinois law (5 ILCS 120, Illinois Open Meetings Act), all meetings of a public body must have an agenda made available to the public and media no less than 48 hours prior to the meeting.
Further, the Act is very strict as to what a quorum is: A quorum is a majority of the board.
Quorums may not meet and discuss business, even under casual circumstances (coffee, lunch, golf, etc).
On a three-member board (which Williamson County is), two of three members constitutes a quorum; therefore, even two county commissioners cannot meet and discuss county business.
In particular, they certainly cannot meet out of the public’s eye (in a storage room, regardless of the intent, or contents, of the room) and certainly not without an agenda having been produced and published at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting.
This doesn’t seem to dissuade Williamson County, however.
Union meeting
To make matters worse, Disclosure sources confirmed that on the NEXT day, Friday, Nov. 15, yet ANOTHER meeting was held in Room 226, this one noted on the schedule book as “Union.”
Commissioner Jim Marlo advised Disclosure’s source that all three commissioners were present for the “union” meeting with John Huffman, who represents the AFSCME (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees) union, on that date.
Marlo advised that “sometimes personal employee issues are discussed” at these meetings, and “therefore it’s not an ‘Open Meetings Act’ meeting.”
There was no one from the county’s state’s attorney’s office (the county’s legal counsel) present, Marlo said.
This might have been the drawback, as, if Wendy Cunningham (assistant state’s attorney) from prosecutor Chuck Garnati’s office had been present, she might have noted that to have an unannounced, unrecorded, full-quorum meeting behind closed doors for any reason was the height of illegality for the commissioners to engage in.
‘Thayut’s tha way
we’ve allweez dunnit’
Disclosure is in the process of submitting, or having associates submit, FOIA requests to show whether this is an ongoing practice with the county board, as well as whether they have “always done it that way” for so long that they have lost sight of what Illinois Compiled Statutes present as guidelines about how public bodies are supposed to conduct business.
The FOIA process has become complicated in both Marion and Williamson County, as information is being uncovered that is showing startling irregularities in the operations of both entities, operations which could conceivably be very expensive to the taxpayer.
Of late, FOIAs submitted by Marion residents Lily Abbott and Ann Colborn about the operations of both entities have been unanswered, intentionally, and the attorney general’s office has opened a case on one of them.
In one case that the AG’s office has opened for the city of Marion regarding a complaint Abbott made only recently, the FOIA Abbott issued to the city of Marion dates back originally to September, when she was seeking copies of complete bank statements including all checks for four city bank accounts for the seven-year period from mid-2006 through mid-2013.
The city said they’d comply with the request, but told Abbott they wanted $3,750 for copies, and wanted extra time, claiming that the request was “burdensome.”
So as to avoid the egregious cost, and to reduce the burden, Abbott resubmitted the FOIA, stating that she would accept electronic copies instead of hard copies, thus creating ease for the city, as most checking accounts now submit little checks photocopies and placed on bank statements, and these were available electronically to the accountholder.
The second request was on October 2, 2013. The city responded that her request was “duplicative” (which many entities are using as an excuse these days to clarification requests, as the state allows the entity to claim “duplicative” if a FOIA request really IS; in this case, it was not, since a resubmission for material in a different form is not a duplication, but a resubmission) and as a result, on Nov. 5, they refused it.
The attorney general’s office received Abbott’s request for review and on Nov. 19, advised city attorney Alice Rix that they would be expecting an explanation (response) within five days.
The results of that response will be featured in upcoming editions of Disclosure, as will the results of the county’s FOIAs.